I just recently wrote up and designed a heirarchy for my MUD, which I hope with a little testing proves to be as sound as I think it is.

The MUD operates with a three-pronged head. Two admin may override the decision of the third by majority (even if only one of them pays for the hosting). The reason behind this is that no one person knows everything. This little "tribunal" is based HEAVILY on trust and the fact that all three of us have a near-identical vision of what we wish to accomplish.

Beneath the three-headed adminship, there are coders and devs. In both of those departments, there is a 'head', a 'training' level, and the 'middle' (the bulk of the department).

The MUD also operates on strict policies and there are plans being made on how to handle staff-vs-staff disagreements.

The MUD operates with a three-pronged head. Two admin may override the decision of the third by majority (even if only one of them pays for the hosting).

If you scroll back to the first page, you'll see that that's very similar to the way I started out. The short of it is that it didn't work out - after five months of compromise we ended up with something that none of us found particularly appealing, and which none of us were motivated to do anything more with. Design scrapped.

Namir wrote:

The reason behind this is that no one person knows everything.

Right, and a wise mud owner will listen to and consider the ideas of his fellow admin, as well as those of the playerbase. However you can do that with any heirarchy.

As I see it, your proposal is more of a veto system than anything else, allowing admin to block and restrain each other from making certain decisions.

Namir wrote:

This little "tribunal" is based HEAVILY on trust and the fact that all three of us have a near-identical vision of what we wish to accomplish.

But what happens if/when those visions begin to move in different directions? What happens if the mud begins to stagnate because nobody can agree on any major decisions?

But what happens if/when those visions begin to move in different directions? What happens if the mud begins to stagnate because nobody can agree on any major decisions?

Then I do what is necessary to save my investment.

This is my first attempt ever at trying to run a MUD -- its a learning experience. I have no doubt that there will some places where I will fail, fail again, and then realize, "Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't do that."

Another option which I will always have is to take back control. In a MUD that's become quite developed, however, and is "well seen," action like that could be seen as callous and childish, and would probably do some serious PR damage that I would prefer to avoid.

Actually quite a lot of muds are done that way. Every arch requires a keystone. Remove the keystone and the mud falls apart. Maybe that's why they have often been known to call themselves arch-wizards? Hmm.

Our first version of Athens we had a heirarchy that just didn't make sense. Staff were given access to commands that had nothing to do with their actual function/skills simply because their position was 'higher' up in levels than other functions. A person who wrote scripts was automatically given all the rpstaff commands. Someone who was an jr admin had power over anyone, not just the one dept they were assigned.

It seems to make more sense to go with groups that give access to different commands and grant groups to staff who want to participate in that activity. This allows for more cross-training for those members of the staff who want to broaden their horizons while preventing staff from gaining unnecessary commands.

This is the way NakedMud is designed and therefore how our second version of Athens is. It seems to work well for us although the real test will come once we open.